There is some question as to whether or not Brandon Hogan will be playing this Saturday night against LSU. Bill Stewart alluded to the possibility in a press conference yesterday. The issue? Hogan was indefinitely suspended a few weeks ago after getting arrested for driving under the influence.

Indefinite suspensions, which is what Hogan was given at the time of the arrest, tend to involve more than a single game spent on the sidelines, which is where Hogan was last Saturday when WVU was busy beating Maryland. While on the sidelines, he no doubt witnessed WVU’s pass defense getting shredded by Maryland’s best receiver, a receiver who Hogan would have been guarding had he been sensible enough not to get drunk without a way to get home other than his own vehicle. So the issue has become not one of Hogan’s irresponsibility - something that he definitely was - but Bill Stewart’s curious definition of indefinite suspension.

There are two different strategies one can take when writing about something like this. Let’s try both:

Shock
I am shocked, shocked I tell you, to discover that a college coach would be willing to ignore a player’s criminal activities if it means even only a scintilla of a better chance against a hostile opponent in that opponent’s own stadium! Rest assured that the West Virginia University Football Program has sunk to a new, even lower depth than ever previously imagined. Great coaches of old - men like Bobby Bowden and Don Nehlen - would never have tolerated behavior like Hogan’s. He would have been dismissed from the team immediately and his name removed from the record books. Anybody who believed that Stewart would take us back to an era of coaches we could be proud of us as fans must surely be disappointed on this today, what with these blatant machinations!

Casual Dismissal
College coaches are paid to win football games. You do that by fielding the best possible team, alleged criminal behavior be damned. Bill Stewart would be irresponsible to hold out a player who could potentially help WVU to win a huge game against LSU, both to himself professionally and to fans with expectations. And anybody who steadfastly believes that precisely this sort of thing wasn’t happening years ago is lying to themselves. Don Nehlen’s assistants used to approach professors about changing grades if it meant keeping a player on the field. No doubt worse was excused, ignored, and otherwise brushed aside in the pursuit of victories. Let’s not waste time pretending that college football is anything other than what it is: a cold-blooded business.

But Really
Isn’t the answer somewhere between those two equally correct extremes? Yes, it is shameful that Stewart might consider rescinding Hogan’s suspension not because of anything he actually did, but because Pat Miller looks to be about as effective as covering wide-receivers as this site is at generating traffic. (Editor’s Note: This site generates no traffic.) But from Stewart’s perspective, what’s necessarily important to moralizers isn’t what’s important to him. He’s paid to win games and doing that means Hogan has to play, bad behavior be damned.

Hate to say it, but if the blame falls anywhere, it falls on those who prioritize victories over everything else, be them administrators, coaches, players, the media, or fans. Frankly, there are equal numbers of all groups who fall into the Shocked and But Really camps. It’s that addiction to winning, something to be done at all costs, that produces these sorts of situations when they emerge.

A few years ago, I had a conversation with a friend and fellow fan of the Mountaineers. I asked him if he thought Cam Thoroughman would be getting so much love from the fans if he wasn’t white. He scrunched up his face and sighed before asking me, “Is Kevin Jones getting the love he deserves considering he’s twice the player Thoroughman is?” Then we stopped our conversation, both nervous about its implications in the grander scheme of things. After all, we both loved Thoroughman as much as anybody. We both still do.

And frankly, everybody loves Thoroughman. He’s tough. He’s gritty. He’s scrappy. He makes the most of his talent. He’s gotten himself on the floor despite a repeatedly injured knee that robbed him of the game that earned him his trip to Morgantown. He makes the most of the time that he’s on the floor, including last Saturday’s all around performance (9pts, 7rbs, 6asts). He’s famously spent his four years here doing all of the little things that help teams win basketball games.

This isn’t about Cam Thoroughman though. This is about John Flowers.

Specifically, it’s about wondering why Flowers contributions this season seem like they’re falling by the wayside. His numbers? They’re excellent: he’s averaging 9.7pts, 7.2rbs, 2.5asts, and 2.5blks per game. He has gone from making 50 percent free throws to more than 75 percent of them. He’s played good minutes and stout defense. He has rarely made mistakes, and for the sake of comparison, he has averaged .3 more turnovers per game than Thoroughman in three times the amount of floor time.

And yet…

…let’s put it this way: Flowers isn’t beloved in the same way that Thoroughman is and there has to be a reason for that. It isn’t like Flowers hasn’t done things that ought to resonate with the fans. His way of celebrating victory over Notre Dame in last year’s Big East Tournament remains one of my favorite things about the 2009-2010 season. He’s always been a bit of an oddity during his time here and his Twittering is legendary.

And yet…

John Flowers and his contributions are not being sufficiently appreciated for reasons that I cannot entirely account for. I can account for the fact that announcers routinely introduce Thoroughman’s play with effusive and enthusiastic praise. I can also account for the fact that it is early in the season, just before the time when the men’s basketball team gets almost the entirety of the Mountaineer Nation’s attention. I cannot account for the rest of it.

And yet…

I originally asked if Cam Thoroughman would be as beloved if he weren’t white. It is a question that gives me the creeps, if only for the way it might be answered. Just as disturbing is wondering whether Flowers would be getting the recognition he deserves he if was white. I think we can all hope that the answer is no. As sports fans, I think many of us are unknowing adherents of the just world phenomenon; even when confronted with this conundrum, we will force ourselves to believe that there is a valid (read: not racially driven) explanation for this difference in recognition. But if race isn’t the explanation we’re willing to accept, then what is the real reason for the disparity?

Bill Byrne, Morgantown’s esteemed mayor (and a friendly enough guy), took to Facebook this morning to post this plea for votes. In it, he makes some radically ridiculous assertions that need to be specifically addressed.

just “suggested” this page to a bunch of folks…here’s the deal…the election for City Council in Morgantown has started…ballots were mailed out today and will arrive at home of registered voters tomorrow or Monday..Tuesday the latest…I ask all who live in Morgantown to vote for me…if you do not live in the city please call 5 people you know in the City and ask them to vote for me…and other sensible candidates.

Asking for votes is fair. Encouraging friends to vote for you is fair. Here’s what isn’t:

Here’s what’s at stake: A slate of angry tea party like candidates funded and/or supported by out of city developers and a group of unhappy city workers who want to control Council, are seeking to undo the great success of Morgantown over the past 10-15 years.

The slate of “angry tea party like candidates” that he’s referring are the challengers: George Papandreas (running against Ron Bane), Linda Herbst (running against Don Spencer), Jim Manilla (running against John Gaddis), and Guy Panrell (running against Byrne himself). He’s also referring to Wesley Nugent, one of two candidates running for the Third Ward’s open seat. What Byrne isn’t doing is being subtle. At all. There is a huge difference between candidates like Papandreas and Herbst (both of whom favor dedicating significant portions of city resources to themselves, their properties, and their own wants and desires) and somebody like Wesley Nugent (a Wiles Hill resident pursuing a seat opened by a retirement). That Byrne is either unwilling or unable to recognize such subtleties is deeply troubling. But perhaps more troubling is that he’s implying that those voters who support any of these particular candidates are like the Tea Partiers. That would be news to people like my parents, lifetime liberals who have supported such fringe candidates as Bill Byrne in past elections. More in a moment.

We have been incredibly successful by avoiding this type of special interest group politics and political shenanigans. Help keep proven leadership in place and vote for Bill Byrne, John Gaddis, Nelson France and Don Spencer….please tell your friends to say NO to the negativity and stay positive with proven and sensible leadership. Thanks to all… Bill Byrne

Let’s ignore the fact that Byrne is getting into an endorsements game as the city’s sitting mayor. Let’s focus on how clearly he is making his disdain for the Wiles Hill and Highland Park neighborhoods. He believes that they would be better represented by Nelson France, a candidate who was entirely unknown to the entirety of the 3rd Ward’s residents until he saw an opportunity to run for City Council than by the Wiles Hill-Highland Park Neighborhood Association’s President? On the basis of what is Byrne drawing this conclusion? Simply put, Byrne owes the entire 3rd Ward either an explanation or an apology. He ought to go door-to-door doing one or the other, and I hope for his sake that he lingers at the homes of long-time city residents (including my parents) to particularly explain his advocacy for a candidate who has no experience over a proven representative of the neighborhood and its interests.

The following needs to be noted: at least two of our sitting City Councilors, including the city’s mayor, have been helping and advising Nelson France’s campaign. There is no question of this truth. Bill Byrne admitted as much when he endorsed France yesterday and Jennifer Selin acknowledged her own logistical support a week ago at the candidate’s forum. The question voters ought to ask themselves is why, and more specifically, why would at least two city representatives support the campaign of an unknown college student who was so concerned about Morgantown’s 3rd Ward that he never bothered to attend a meeting of its neighborhood association until a seat on City Council came open.

The answer is simple: his vote.

The Situation
Byrne has alleged that a shady cabal of outsider candidates are threatening the City Council’s stability. He might be right. At least two of the candidates running for office (George Papandreas and Linda Herbst) shouldn’t be trusted any further than they can be thrown; both have a vested interest in steering city resources toward their own financial interests and would have indicated that they would do so given the opportunity.

If Byrne is serious about his concern of shady special interests, he sure has an odd way of showing it. Byrne’s endorsement of Nelson France reeks of precisely the same sort of political meddling that he’s so busy decrying in other wards around the city. Why? Because France is an entirely unknown quantity. He’s kept his campaign for office shrouded in secrecy, repeatedly refusing the answer difficult questions posed to him by voters who want to know more about the candidate.

Byrne considers this behavior deserving of an endorsement.

Why?

Because Bill Byrne (and Jennifer Selin) have no love for the 3rd Ward’s permanent residents. As far as both are concerned, the Wiles Hill and Highland Park neighborhoods are nothing more than the current sacrificial lamb being offered to West Virginia University’s ongoing expansion. (Especially now that the University has consumed almost everything from College Avenue (besides the Mountainlair) to Monongalia Avenue (on top of Woodburn). Were those residents to be represented by a patsy incapable of saying no to their approval of whatever idiotic development is next proposed for the neighborhood, people like Byrne and Selin would have an even easier time of letting the neighborhood collapse into the sort of hellish degradation that blights Sunnyside.

Why though would they do that? The answer is clear: better in Wiles Hill than South Hills or Suncrest, the neighborhoods occupied by Byrne and Selin, respectively. If protecting their own neighborhoods from the sort of rampant decline that has characterized lower Wiles Hill for the last 20 years means supporting a candidate who has no Earthly business even considering the pursuit of office, so be it. Even if that support means opposing a long time neighborhood resident whose consistent work with its neighborhood association and tireless advocacy for that place’s wellbeing.

Conclusion
Byrne is free to rail against the shady cabals he sees hiding in the shadows. I’m with him when it comes to some of those candidates. But for him to pretend that he isn’t being just as coldly calculating in his own behavior, for him to act as though he is somehow above the ugly fray that he is so disgusted by? That’s an outrageously transparent act, one that degrades not only Byrne himself, but the office of the mayor more generally. Morgantown deserves solid representation from each of its seven wards. Every elected official ought to be able to agree on that simple point. That Byrne and Selin clearly don’t is at least as troubling as the idea that candidates like Papandreas and Herbst might win.

I understand your objections to this t-shirt. It’s crude. It’s objectionable. It’s tasteless. Things have gotten so bad that the university that it has created an amnesty program for those who wear the shirt, offering essentially to buy the shirt off your back for a gift certificate that will allow you to buy a new t-shirt, one without any language that some find objectionable.

I understand what is being done, but I don’t like it. I’ve always liked that shirt. I’ve always liked it because, whenever I’ve seen it, I thought it sent the right message of pride and individuality in the face of so many who demand that West Virginians have neither. Yes, you can say that West Virginians can have both without swearing and you’d be right, but there’s something about the emphasis that comes along with the use of the epithet that makes the point.

Look at what has happened to West Virginia athletics in the last week - Pitt and Syracuse left the Big East, essentially destroying the football side of the conference, despite both being minor players in the league for the last few years. The league they absconded to, the ACC, wanted nothing to do with the Big East’s most successful program, West Virginia, because we’re not good enough to compete with their teams (teams that we regularly defeat). Other leagues took a sniff at us - after all we’re a successful program with a loyal following - and repeatedly said no. Nobody in the national media, at any time, used West Virginia’s exclusion as evidence of the corruption of the process, despite WVU’s performance for the better part of a decade. No matter what level of success we achieve, we will always be also-rans as far as the power-brokers are concerned. There will never be a time when we’re compared favorably with another program.

And yet we have to be nice? We have to be polite? We have to be welcoming? We have to think of the children?

Why?

What do we get out of it? The answer is anodyne. The answer is generic. The answer is everybody else. Because everybody else everywhere else doesn’t wear a shirt like that because they don’t have to. Nobody looks at you when you say you’re from Pennsylvania and assumes there’s something wrong with you. Nobody looks at you when you’re from Virginia and assumes there’s something wrong with you. The thing we get from getting rid of the t-shirt is that we abandon a proud declaration of where we’re from that happens to be vulgar at the same time.

I’m not sure that’s enough. It isn’t like getting rid the shirts is going to make all of those schools and conferences who didn’t want anything to do with us love us. It isn’t like the state estimation is going to go up in the eyes of outsiders. We’ll always be West Virginia to them.

So why not own it, and not only own it, but in a way that’s vulgar and crude, in a way that not only owns it but refuses even to consider apologizing for it? Because it’s vulgar? Because it’s crude? Perhaps. But I don’t think that’s a good enough reason to oppose them. Vulgarity and crudeness exist everywhere and the absence of one slogan from a few t-shirts sure isn’t going to change that.